[Subject changed]
Chris Travers wrote:
> Assuming that Mr Rosen does
> not intend the AFL to require source distribution to people who deploy
> the software for public use, it would be there too (if he does, then I
> would suggest placing it under "other").
Of course I didn't intend that. Please read AFL carefully. The promise to
deliver source code in Section 3 in AFL (and identically in OSL also!) is
upon the Licensor, not the licensee. Only the person who originally
distributes the software under AFL must promise to provide source code
(otherwise, is it really open source?). But downstream, licensees under AFL
are free to distribute their copies and derivative works "under any license
of your choice...." See Section 1(c).
Just like the BSD, but here *explicitly not* reciprocal or copyleft.
Compare the implications for source code because of Section 1(c) of the
reciprocal/copyleft OSL. That license *does* impose a source code promise
upon each downstream distributor/Licensor. Because that distribution must be
under OSL (section 1(c)), each distributor becomes a Licensor promising
source code under his own copy of the OSL license (section 3).
This demonstrates that one must understand open source licenses in detail
*and* as a whole, and not lose sight of the implications of one section upon
another.
/Larry